The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’re just a squawking parrot.

It is unrelated, of course, but I finally succeeded in training my parrot, Oliver, to recite the Cogito, however he does so with extraordinary irreverence and with obscene grunts, lunges and thrusting gestures. I do not think captivity has ultimately benefited him. But what can I do? Set him free? I am not sure he is up to the task of freedom …

I take it you’re not yet familiar with the concept of fairy stories then. That’s about as much sense you’re going to get out of the human story telling brain. At least IC is able to humble himself, unlike you, who is addicted to getting stoned on your own brain farts.

One interesting fact about our Occidental intellectual system is that we see our world through established scientific paradigms which thoroughly constrain perception. One assumes that both Brother Immanuel and Brother Wilbur share this internalized perspective, as do most of us.

Interestingly, Immanuel seeks to justify views of “reality” (i.e. fantastic Hebrew story-telling) that are thoroughly contrary to science-based understanding and he does so (this is a sort of reduced metaphor for his style of thinking) through dependency on the logic of ‘maths’. From the Divine Creator the universe was begun; therefore all that comprises the specific Hebrew-Christian religious narrative is real. Equestrian leaps abound …

In essence, Wilbur reduces philosophy to “story telling”. But no ‘story’ can hold up against the bedrock of a scientific description of reality. Or can it? So it all reduces to unreal stories based on preference and aesthetics.

In a sense Fairy is quite right even when the contrasting perspectives of Immanuel and Wilbur are compared. How different are they really?

There is no ‘magic’ in either of their worlds. There is no poetry either.

Thus there is a ‘style of mind’ that logically encloses itself within a fettered world it calls truth or ‘the way things are’.

[seeds]

Present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought.

Well, this is just the radical scepticism that students of philosophy routinely do, much as musicians practise their scales. However daft it sounds, it doesn't actually follow from there is a thought, that there is a thinker.

Well, if the "students" (and especially the "masters") of philosophy didn't "routinely" apply (not so "radical") skepticism to dubious propositions, then they wouldn't be very good at philosophy.

And speaking of dubious propositions, you have yet to offer any explanation whatsoever that even remotely justifies "why" it doesn't actually follow from there is a thought, that there is a thinker.

And just to make sure we're on the same general page, how about we view the first thing that pops-up when Googling the definition of the word "thought" (emphasis mine)...

thought

noun

• 1. an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind:
  "Maggie had a sudden thought" "I asked him if he had any thoughts on how it had happened" "Mrs. Oliver's first thought was to get help"
  
  (Similar: idea, notion, belief, concept, conception, conviction, opinion)
  
  (one's thoughts)
  one's mind or attention:
  "he's very much in our thoughts and prayers"
  an act of considering or remembering someone or something:

• 2. the action or process of thinking:
  "Sophie sat deep in thought"
  
  (Similar: thinking, reasoning, contemplation, musing, pondering)

I know that you're not prone to such things, but just in case it crosses someone's mind to offer-up some sort of Hindu-ish/guru-ish nonsense that suggests that just because there is "thinking" taking place, that it doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a "thinker," then don't bother, because I ain't buying it.

Anyway, my old friend, once again I ask you...

(with the addition of the word "please" this time)

...to please present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought.

And while you're at it, how about you give me your own personal definition of what you think the word "thought" means?
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note: I just asked Oliver that question and he is right now, like old Ahab in a sea-storm, walking the curtain rods in what seems to me extraordinary concentration as he ponders what “thought” is …

Expect on-going reports.

[Age]

You can't really "disagree" with maths. You can understand it, or you can fail to understand it; but you can't change it. There is no infinitely-regressive sequence of prerequisites or causes. That's just a mathematical fact.

Your argument boils down to:

There is an infinite sequence of numbers
Therefore there isn't an infinite sequence of events

You're not understanding it. The numbers are just symbolic placeholders, representing reality. But they're very telling about reality.

Let's try again: just write down a number -- I'll let you pick it...let it be 1, or 1,000, or 1,000,000. That stands for the point at which something is caused to happen as a result of a causal chain. But before you write that number, you have to have already written the sequence of numbers that precedes it...not just back to 3, 2, 1, 0, but back to -1, -2, -3...and so on, to infinity. That represents, numerically, the infinite sequence of previous events that would have to have already happened so that your number-event could take place.

Now, when will you get to write your number?

Just so, no causal sequence can be infinite. QED.

you keep using 'this example' and applying it to a finite thing. Which will obviously produce what you want to happen. But, in no way does your example actually work, in and of itself, to produce 'the outcome' that you are so desperately wanting and desiring, here.

Again, your beliefs are getting in 'the way' if you being able to see, at all, here, let alone being able to see crystal clearly, and fully.

Not only is that not a sound argument, it isn't even valid.

That's only because you've mistaken and been unable to represent the argument I'm making. Of course it's invalid. You left out the connecting premises.

... Idealism is much less common than, say, Materialism, or Common Sense Realism, or regular Realism, or Empiricism, or Mysticism, or quite a number of other schools. So again, what makes Idealism "probable"?

Ah, you take plausible to mean probable; not my intention.

Then show that it's "tenable," if that's what you meant. It's still not at all clear to me why you think it's a better option for us to default to than any of the alternatives. And if it's not, then it's not to be a preferred hypothesis at all.

Again, 'these people' would 'look at' hypotheses, theories, presumptions, and even guesses about what might, or could, be, in Life, and focused on them instead of just 'looking at' and focusing on 'what actual is', only.

Thus, why they could not find, and recognize and see, what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life.

There is no wonder why 'those people', back then, took so, so long to 'catch up'.

[Age]

That's only because you've mistaken and been unable to represent the argument I'm making. Of course it's invalid. You left out the connecting premises.

Fair enough. What are the connecting premises?

See my last message.

I don't actually believe you don't understand the argument. That wouldn't square with what I already know about your intelligence. So you must be trolling me...it's all I can conclude.

Once again, when 'this one' is questioned and challenged it provides absolutely nothing at all, except, of course, attempts at destruction and deflection.

So, once more "immanuel can" uses attempts at deception to 'try to' deflect away from the Fact that it can not back up and support its beliefs and claims, here.

[Age]

Present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought.

Well, this is just the radical scepticism that students of philosophy routinely do, much as musicians practise their scales. However daft it sounds, it doesn't actually follow from there is a thought, that there is a thinker.

Well, if the "students" (and especially the "masters") of philosophy didn't "routinely" apply (not so "radical") skepticism to dubious propositions, then they wouldn't be very good at philosophy.

And speaking of dubious propositions, you have yet to offer any explanation whatsoever that even remotely justifies "why" it doesn't actually follow from there is a thought, that there is a thinker.

I really wish that the people who make claims, here, in a 'philosophy forum' would back up and support their claims when they are challenged or question to.

A thought can exist without there necessarily being a so-called 'thinker', this happens at those times when a thought is existing, shared in print, for example, and there exists one who is 'aware' and not 'thinking'. This phenomenon can also occur when a thought arises within a body, and one is just 'aware', or notices 'the thought's arising but who is not actually 'thinking' 'the thought'.

All of 'this' becomes much better, and fully, understood when who and what 'you' people are, exactly, and who and what 'I' am, exactly, becomes known and fully understood. And, thus when the 'thinker' can be separated from the 'Knower', which is just the One who is aware of all things, including of 'those thoughts', which arise within those human bodies.

And just to make sure we're on the same general page, how about we view the first thing that pops-up when Googling the definition of the word "thought" (emphasis mine)...

thought

noun

• 1. an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind:
  "Maggie had a sudden thought" "I asked him if he had any thoughts on how it had happened" "Mrs. Oliver's first thought was to get help"
  
  (Similar: idea, notion, belief, concept, conception, conviction, opinion)
  
  (one's thoughts)
  one's mind or attention:
  "he's very much in our thoughts and prayers"
  an act of considering or remembering someone or something:

• 2. the action or process of thinking:
  "Sophie sat deep in thought"
  
  (Similar: thinking, reasoning, contemplation, musing, pondering)

I know that you're not prone to such things, but just in case it crosses someone's mind to offer-up some sort of Hindu-ish/guru-ish nonsense that suggests that just because there is "thinking" taking place, that it doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a "thinker," then don't bother, because I ain't buying it.

you also do not 'buy' the Fact that 'a thought' can be shared without any one at that particular moment 'thinking' right?

If yes, then this is because of your 'current' belief that there could not exist 'a thought' without 'a thinker'.

Anyway, my old friend, once again I ask you...

(with the addition of the word "please" this time)

...to please present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought.

A thought, of any human being who has so-called already 'died', but which 'that thought' still exists in print, in memory, or in verbal speech, is a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of 'a thought' minus the existence of the so-called 'thinker' (and owner) of 'the thought'.

And, as always, if absolutely any one would like to have a Truly open and honest peaceful discussion, here, then let 'us' begin.

And while you're at it, how about you give me your own personal definition of what you think the word "thought" means?
_______

[SpheresOfBalance]

The facts are that no one can either "know" something exists, that has never been proven, or that they can "know" something doesn't exist, because as of yet, it hasn't been proven. No one "knows" what they don't "know", and no one "knows" what they only believe they "know". "Knowing" requires empirical data and possibly double blind studies. All things can only be "known" using the scientific method.

[Eodnhoj7]

Existence is eternal. It was never created, which proves god's nonexistence as Creator; it also means that Everything is already actualized. "Possibility" or the Buddhist potentiality is not possible.

There is no empty space in Existence in which actuality could boil, and there is no empty space to which it could actualize and materialize.

Existence is full, and there is nothing beyond it.

Existence is a process of change, existence is perpetually created as processes within processes.

We have limited perception, which is why we see the "changes". Buddhists even claim that things are appearing from the Big Mind, last a second or two and then disappear back in the "Potentiality".

In the close system like Existence, in which Everything has already happened, and from the perspective of Existence, nothing is changing.

In thr perspective of existence as a total there is no contrast for anything to occur thus relegating the ultimate power, existence, to not be a thing which is either provable or disprovable...thus your disproof is nullified.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are again jumping from "if" to "sure".

Nothing can't exist because that is not possible.

Void as nothing also does not exist.

God as Creator does not exist because that is not possible.

There is only Existence that was never created and will never disappear.

Existence is eternal.

Nothingness exists as a distinction of absence. For every one things that occurs there are infinite absences of other things. Each thing is a relative void.

Dually the intrinsic emptiness of a thing, evidenced by transformative change, observes void as ever present.

This void can be observed as the act of attention itself.

This void can be observed in the emptiness of a particle or the quantum vacuum of space.

Creation is the act of attention, for the only thing truly known is attention. By attention distinctions emerge and dissolve.

Creation is the act of transformation, reality is perpetually created.

The everpresent cause is potentiality as void.

All distinctions which emerge and dissolve from void results in the recursion of distinction itself.

Infinite existence is God. The void that underlies existence, is God beyond existence.

Nothing is just a concept, and it does not exist in reality because it can't.

Relative nothing - invisible energy in the form of gases - exist. Absolute Nothing in which there is nothing, and even that is missing does not exist.

Attention is just a narrow form of Awareness which is the widest awareness possible as encompasses all Existence.

In a closed system like Existence, there is no creation as Everything has already happened.

There is no cause in a closed system. Causal-sequential model is wrong. Existence functions in simultaneity.

Changes are just effects of our limited perception. In Existence, Everything has already happened, and nothing new is created.

There is no potentiality, there is actuality as Everything is already actualized.

There is no void, Existence is full. There is no god, and there is nothing beyond Existence as Existence is Everything that is.

Existence is just a distinction.

Nothingness does exist. For every x there are infinite not x.

Simple example: where a car is there is not a tree, another tree, another tree, a star, another star, a house, another house, a different car, another different car...etc.

Absolute nothingness is the totality of existence itself where this totality lacks contrast to anything other than it thus ceasing for the totality to be distinct.

Observing attention with attention is to observe nothing...void. This void observed elsewhere, evidence by the innumerable absences given within anyone thing, is everpresent.

Void is the unfolding of distinction, everpresent.

Everything already be actualized occurs only within the context of the totality and this totality is nothing, thus what you claim as actual exists only within the context of the potential.

Existence is God. The Void is God.

God occurs through all things and is beyond all things as evidenced by the potentiality by which all thing occur.

You seem to implie that change is an illusion, but illusion is purely a distinction made upon an assumed measuring point by which to measure reality. It is a context and as such is not always true relative to other contexts.

Change is a distinction that is everpresent, if you believe otherwise than you belief undermines itself as you change symbols, in your writing, to explain those beliefs.

You have no evidence but a personal interpretation of what you think reality is or is not.

[Eodnhoj7]

The facts are that no one can either "know" something exists, that has never been proven, or that they can "know" something doesn't exist, because as of yet, it hasn't been proven. No one "knows" what they don't "know", and no one "knows" what they only believe they "know". "Knowing" requires empirical data and possibly double blind studies. All things can only be "known" using the scientific method.

And where is the empirical data that justifies that empirical data collection explains everything?

Last time I check empirical data is a distinction just like an abstraction is a distinction.

The only thing that remains is distinction...even truth and falsity are subject to this as they are distinctions.

[Will Bouwman]

What are the connecting premises?

See my last message.

Well, what you said was:

The numbers are just symbolic placeholders, representing reality.

The connection you didn't make is why something, which is infinite, is an appropriate representation for something you insist can't be.

I don't actually believe you don't understand the argument.

And you are right; which is how I know it is invalid. There's also the fact that it hinges on your assertion that the universe is causal; which is seriously challenged by quantum mechanics.

That wouldn't square with what I already know about your intelligence. So you must be trolling me...it's all I can conclude.

It may seem that way to you, and I grant it is consistent with the evidence. So too is the possibility that I am simply pointing out what every philosophy undergraduate understands by the end of their first term. You can believe what you will but, short of taking my word for it, you cannot know which is true.

Don't you take the sorts of critiques mounted by Moore, Russell, et al. seriously? Do you think Idealism survives those critiques?

Yup.

Or are you just using "Idealism" as a placeholder for "I don't think reality actually exists," or some other such position?

There are different flavours of idealism, but the basic idea is not that reality doesn't exist, rather that the substrate is closer to mental than physical. I happen to think the best explanation for reality is some version of quantum field theory; quantum fields are not physical in the 'common sense' that Moore appealed to for challenging idealism. Having completed my philosophical chops, I know enough not to insist that I know the metaphysical nature of quantum fields, assuming of course, that they exist. It is only in the philosophical vacuum of cranks and nut jobs that such certainty exists.

I can't even imagine what you're meaning.

That's because you have never been a philosophy undergraduate.

I don't think Idealism is "consistent with the evidence."

What evidence do you think is inconsistent with idealism?

[Will Bouwman]

Anyway, my old friend, once again I ask you...

(with the addition of the word "please" this time)

...to please present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought.

Well, since you put it like that, I don't personally believe that there are thoughts without a thinker, but I can't prove it.

[Belinda]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

The title and body of Senad's message implies he is unaware that God is
* eternally in process of becoming as long as there are human beings(known as immanent god)

or

* a being that transcends the world of time,space, and force and which is the Creator of time, space, and force.(known as transcendent god)

or

*both of the above which are not mutually exclusive

[Belinda]

Anyway, my old friend, once again I ask you...

(with the addition of the word "please" this time)

...to please present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought.

Well, since you put it like that, I don't personally believe that there are thoughts without a thinker, but I can't prove it.

ChatGPT:-

The canonical “great philosopher” who explicitly claims that there are thoughts without a thinker is David Hume, though the idea resonates deeply with Buddhist and later existential thought.

Concerning Seeds's request for a scenario of thought without a thinker please see David Hume:- The mind is a bundle of perceptions.

[Immanuel Can]

What are the connecting premises?

See my last message.

Well, what you said was:

The numbers are just symbolic placeholders, representing reality.

The connection you didn't make is why something, which is infinite, is an appropriate representation for something you insist can't be.

Try it. You can't do it.

That fits perfectly with the claim: you can't produce an actual infinite on paper, nor can you do it in real life. That's because an actually infinite regress of prerequisites is impossible. So there cannot be an infinite regress of causes that produced the universe.

It's so simple. I don't believe you can't grasp it. The required mathematical and logical understanding is not very sophisticated. And if those are too hard, the empirical test is another way to go that confirms it.

I can't make it simpler.

I happen to think the best explanation for reality is some version of quantum field theory; quantum fields are not physical in the 'common sense' that Moore appealed to for challenging idealism. Having completed my philosophical chops, I know enough not to insist that I know the metaphysical nature of quantum fields, assuming of course, that they exist. It is only in the philosophical vacuum of cranks and nut jobs that such certainty exists.

Well, let's go to your stuff about quantum physics. Manifestly, it's a big topic, and not well-understood yet, even by physicists. But I see nothing in your appeal to quantum physics that philosophically calls into question either mathematics or the empirical fact of causality. So you'll have to spell out in detail the quantum appeal that you think denies that causality exists.

Interestingly, if what you mean is that causality is not a physical feature of the universe, you are also denying the very possibility of science, without realizing that you're doing it, perhaps. So you've got a big claim to defend there, if there's actually anything in it.

I'm ready to hear how you think quantum physics subverts maths and causality, and by extension, the very possibility of the science that gives us quantum physics itself, if you can make a case. But I think you're climbing up a big hill there.